Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce
around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection,
analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce
around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection,
analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements
must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh
water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

Actually, we do not really know what the Earth's atmosphere was like during its early history. Our models draw on elemental abundances combined with
assumptions about insolation. Abundant light elements like hydrogen were likely boiled away if they were not bound up into heavier molecules. Venus
serves as as a convenient model.

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce
around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection,
analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements
must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh
water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

Wrong again.

Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.

Principia-Scientia exists solely to publish anti climate change propaganda. Gases like CO2 exist in the form of molecules. These molecules bounce
around at different speeds, mixing with other molecules in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is filled with carious current, including convection,
analogous to the bubbles in boiling water. The paper cited in this hit piece ignores all that.

Wrong.

Basic fluid physics.

Higher density molecules like CO2 will necessarily concentrate in the lower portions of the atmosphere, while lighter gases rise.

Ah, that salty water business must be Fake Science too! As both sodium and chlorine have higher molecular weights than H2O, all of those elements
must be lying on the bottom of the deepest ocean! Basic Physics! Ha!

Calling our American Oceans salty is an evil HOAX from Big Water and environazis and George Soros whose UN plot to preserving the supposed "fresh
water" resources is a globalist attack on our precious bodily fluids!

Wrong again.

Dissolution of salt into ion in water is not the same as mixing different fluids.

What is the physics and chemistry of that difference which results in the observationally-false idea that CO2 is separated from the rest of the air?

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of
stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I
recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated
long ago if it did.

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil
fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

No it will make for a hotter climate which will disrupt weather patterns and cause problems for humanity as predicted.

Show me the scientific data that shows the direct correlation between man causing hotter climates.

A 9.3 mile wide asteroid / comet / meteor hits our planet, kills 75% of all vegetable and animal life and in the 227 years man has been burning fossil
fuels we are somehow going to cause mass destruction and the death of our planet?

No it will make for a hotter climate which will disrupt weather patterns and cause problems for humanity as predicted.

Show me the scientific data that shows the direct correlation between man causing hotter climates.

You do realize that page does not debunk the actual science, it debunks the metaphors used to explain the science in popular
publications? It is like disproving relativity by pointing out that space is not a "rubber sheet."

originally posted by: Greven
Principa-Scientific, the source for this utter nonsense, is a ridiculous shill site that just makes up stuff to go with its ideological leanings.

Honestly, it should be banned from linking like the rest of the ones that are, for the same reasons.

CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano in Hawaii, several thousand feet up down to sea level in other locations. There are hundreds of
stations that record CO2 all over the world at varying altitudes, yet the variation is not enormous. The most variation is in Antarctica, as I
recall.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than O2 and N2. No, it does not all fall down to the surface and cluster at ground level, because we would all have suffocated
long ago if it did.

wow man..... VEGETATION?

Vegetation also needs oxygen, so it too would be dead. While the green bits get oxygen from photosynthesis (specifically, the splitting of water
into H2 and O, as the CO2 part is used for carbohydrates), the roots need oxygen from the air. That's why you can drown plants in water. Some
plants have evolved to live in wet conditions, either tolerating the lower oxygen content in water or (like with mangroves) alternative means of
getting oxygen to the roots.

If CO2 clustered near the surface like that idiotic article and several people seem to believe in this thread, then there would be no life on this
rock.

The Vostok ice core sample was obtained by drilling down into the ice above Lake Vostok to a depth of 3623m. The graph built from the Vostok ice core
data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that
CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it
might potentially play a small role. This cannot be confirmed at this time however. The Vostok graph also shows us the cyclical pattern that occurs
with warming and cooling as well as the increase in CO2 levels.

Mate...seriously...stop drinking the kool-aid. You apparently didn't see my initial post in this thread which had to do with critical thinking. That
first article you linked IMMEDIATELY discredits itself within the second sentence. "Land use" is the key phrase.

Do you have any idea how much of the actual surface of this planet man inhabits let alone on an industrial scale? Less than 1%. How does man
occupying less than 1% of the habitable land on the planet contribute to 40% of global warming?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.